Moon was Created

[FishFace]

The degree in which the moon affected the few men to go there suggests it is concentrated spiritual force at work there.

Uh... no it doesn't. How exactly did it affect them? All you've given is that they felt a spiritual feeling. That's nothing very special or surprising, given that they went somewhere that people had never been before or, in the missions, that only a few people had been.

It didn't just give them a touchy feely tingle, but had great impact on their lives.

No evidence, no argument.

And, I wonder at what is really inside the moon, some claim it is hollow. I do not, but do feel that, being such an obvious spiritual place, spirits do reside inside. That means that we can toss out seismic evidence, since those waves can't function as expected when they hit things composed of either spiritual, or physical and spiritual material.

Uhm... right, just let me get this straight. Here is a true to context quotation of what you are saying with some bits removed:

"I ... feel that ... spirits do reside inside [the moon]. That means we can toss out [a piece of] evidence ..."

Sorry, buddy, but your feeling doesn't mean squat!

I guess, that posting a link makes it 'my conclusion' in your books. OK. I actually was just trying to show that science says certain things about age. I can't share their faith there.

No, posting the link makes it your source, and you've interpreted it wrong.

Right, so I have heard. I find it amazing, the lengths so called science will go to cook up some lame PO past story.

So do you have a more parsimonious explanation for why the outer layers of the moon are all melted and crystalised?

But not a past impact. Of course the other already tossed out theories were also based on a same state past assumption. I never doubted that.

Yay! PO same past, ah, it's good to hear from you dad. Yep, we assume that the past operates the same as the present mate! You assume that gravity worked the same 200 years ago, right?

Well, you can put that opinion out, that is fine.

So it's your opinion against mine (seeing as you've got no evidence.) When two opinions clash, which one should we believe - the one trying to posit magical spirits, or the... well, sorry to blow my own trumpet... sane one?

But the bible does talk of spirits under the earth. So why not under the moon, our moon, as well??

Haha! "The bible talks of spirits under the earth, so why shouldn't there be spirits under the moon." Well, there's no logical connection there and sorry, but you need more than a "why not" to establish that spirits exist! More than the bible, too, for that matter.

Looking at the evidence

Of which you have none.

not only did men on the moon get impacted by a bombardment of spiritual force

Where's the evidence for this? Oh yes, "they felt a bit weird."

That is a pretty well documented impact theory! Not like the silly one science has lately resorted to grasping at.

Dad, your conclusion is wrong because you did not include an irrelevant picture.

 

[AV1611VET]

Dad's been laughed at many times before and will be again. His ideas are eminently laughable. Men in the moon indeed. It might not match time running backward or no gravity before the flood but it is still pretty funny.

Well, I'm sure you think they're "funny" because they don't exist on a clipboard or chart anywhere. The minute they would show up though, you'd change your tune - and quick. I'm sure other Christians got "laughed at" when they proposed the earth being round, or the heavens being stretched, or "paths in the sea," etc.; until it was "confirmed" by the only organization on the face of the earth that has any "credibility" with itself --- the First Church of the Holy Clipboard.

You're not getting dad confused with Jesus are you?

No --- you are. Since the statement didn't come with a clipboard though, I'm sure you had trouble with it.

I guess this refers to consul's "one you represent" statement...

Nice, accurate hypothesis.

You are the one claiming God cursed his botched up creation...

It's when you make statements like this that I think you're a user-friendly screen name. I know of two times you made this statement almost exact word-for-word, and I clearly pointed out that His Genesis 1 Creation was not "botched up." Indeed, it was "perfect" - (or "very good" by God's standards).

If I claim "God cursed his [sic] botched up [sic] creation," am I claiming He corrected it?

In other words, if God created the heavens and the earth in six days botched-up, and a year later the Fall occurs, and God curses His Creation, does that mean He corrected it, or made it even worse?

You clearly don't make sense - (but we've discussed this more than once).

(I really get the feeling you are more than one person.)

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Seems to me that the moon being locked with one face towrd the earth would effect how space junk hits the moon - the earth would protect the near side?

It took me a while to find an answer to this question. It seems that a process called gravitational focusing by the earth is expected to cause a higher cratering rate on the near side of the moon rather than the far side. The earth acts a gravitation lens which is predicted to focus impacts on the moon's near side leading to about 2 to 4 times as many impacts being on the near side. However, the far side is heavily cratered as I have pointed out above and the largest known impact crater in the solar system is on the far side.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Well, I'm sure you think they're "funny" because they don't exist on a clipboard or chart anywhere. The minute they would show up though, you'd change your tune - and quick. I'm sure other Christians got "laughed at" when they proposed the earth being round,

Actually it was ancient Greeks who first proposed the earth being spherical.

or the heavens being stretched, or "paths in the sea," etc.; until it was "confirmed" by the only organization on the face of the earth that has any "credibility" with itself --- the First Church of the Holy Clipboard.

What are you talking about?

If you don't think some of dad's ideas are absurd there is certainly something wrong with your logic circuits but we have already seen that haven't we?

No --- you are. Since the statement didn't come with a clipboard though, I'm sure you had trouble with it.

I'm not the one who quoted a verse about Jesus in response to a statement about dad's laughable ideas.

It's when you make statements like this that I think you're a user-friendly screen name. I know of two times you made this statement almost exact word-for-word, and I clearly pointed out that His Genesis 1 Creation was not "botched up." Indeed, it was "perfect" - (or "very good" by God's standards).

And I clearly pointed out that a perfect creation would not contain the seeds of its own destruction. That fact that you can't see that shows that your logic circuits are indeed very faulty.

If I claim "God cursed his [sic] botched up [sic] creation," am I claiming He corrected it?

You do? Aren't you the one who is always saying that nature is hostile to God? Another totally illogical statement by the way.

In other words, if God created the heavens and the earth in six days botched-up, and a year later the Fall occurs, and God curses His Creation, does that mean He corrected it, or made it even worse?

Are you now beginning to see how absurd your twisted logic is?

You clearly don't make sense - (but we've discussed this more than once).

I am not the one making claims that don't make sense.

(I really get the feeling you are more than one person.)

Again showing that your feelings are meaningless.

 

[FishFace]

Well, I'm sure you think they're "funny" because they don't exist on a clipboard or chart anywhere.

No - just because they're completely unevidenced and, not only that, but completely removed from observable reality.

It's when you make statements like this that I think you're a user-friendly screen name. I know of two times you made this statement almost exact word-for-word, and I clearly pointed out that His Genesis 1 Creation was not "botched up." Indeed, it was "perfect" - (or "very good" by God's standards).

God can't have very good standards, then - his "very good" creation was destined to become "very rubbish" and God knew it! If he'd made his creation properly then it would have remained good forever.

You clearly don't make sense - (but we've discussed this more than once).

No, you don't. The whole fall/salvation thing is utter nonsense for an omni* god. An all good, all powerful, all knowing God simply would not curse his creation and then need to kill his own son to lift his own curse. He wouldn't need to go through the curse and flood in the first place, he would have just done it right the first time.

 

[consol]

No, you don't. The whole fall/salvation thing is utter nonsense for an omni* god. An all good, all powerful, all knowing God simply would not curse his creation and then need to kill his own son to lift his own curse. He wouldn't need to go through the curse and flood in the first place, he would have just done it right the first time.

But what kind of a story would that have made?

 

[AV1611VET]

If he'd made his creation properly then it would have remained good forever.

And I clearly pointed out that a perfect creation would not contain the seeds of its own destruction.

You three need to take my Perfect Car Challenge.

 

[TheOutsider]

You three need to take my Perfect Car Challenge.

I noticed that you never defined the word "perfect" in that thread.

 

[AV1611VET]

I noticed that you never defined the word "perfect" in that thread.

If "perfect" is too hard a concept to understand, then use the term God Himself used --- very good.

But remember, it's God calling it very good, not man; and after having had a conversation with MrGoodBytes about it, I'm under the impression that from our point of view, it was pluperfect.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

You three need to take my Perfect Car Challenge.

To make your perfect car challenge relevant you need the following. You give me a "perfect car" to drive but tell me never to turn left. However, you also create a GPS system in the car that tells me you were lying and I can gain great benefit by turning left so I turn left and wreck your perfect car. Of course to make it more relevant you would have had to created me as well along with the perfect car and anything that might somehow be used to wreck that perfect car in some way.

You can make up all the bogus analogies you want, you can't escape the fact that a creation that contains the seeds of its own destruction is not perfect and an omniscient and omnipotent deity could not be forced to repent of something he created, which is what you claimed.

 

[AV1611VET]

To make your perfect car challenge relevant you need the following. You give me a "perfect car" to drive but tell me never to turn left. However, you also create a GPS system in the car that tells me you were lying and I can gain great benefit by turning left so I turn left and wreck your perfect car. Of course to make it more relevant you would have had to created me as well along with the perfect car and anything that might somehow be used to wreck that perfect car in some way.

You can make up all the bogus analogies you want, you can't escape the fact that a creation that contains the seeds of its own destruction is not perfect and an omniscient and omnipotent deity could not be forced to repent of something he created, which is what you claimed.

In other words, two paragraphs just to tell me "no, thanks."

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

In other words, two paragraphs just to tell me "no, thanks."

No two paragraphs to explain why your bogus analogy as you have constructed it is totally meanless.

 

[UncleHermit]

If "perfect" is too hard a concept to understand, then use the term God Himself used --- very good.

The problem, for me at least, was not that I didn't understand the word "perfect" but that I didn't know how to apply that word to a car. It would have really helped me to answer the hypothetical if you would've clarified what a "perfect car" is supposed to be.

 

[PeterMaclellan]

It's a ridiculous analogy because quality of a car is a completely subjective term. What represents a perfect car to one person in no way shape or form represents a perfect car to another. There is no objective definition of "Perfect Car". Some people prefer Hummers, some people prefer Hybrids, some people prefer sports cars, each of these people will have a different idea of what a "Perfect Car" is. Each will have a different idea even of what a "Very good" car is. Since quality is a subjective concept your analogy is meaningless.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

HOLY, uh, night, dad is back!

 

[UncleHermit]

HOLY, uh, night, dad is back!

He was one of the first people I debated with when I first joined the forums (as theinstant) a few years ago. That's when I knew I was in for a wild ride...

 

[AV1611VET]

No two paragraphs to explain why your bogus analogy as you have constructed it is totally meanless.

The problem, for me at least, was not that I didn't understand the word "perfect" but that I didn't know how to apply that word to a car.

It's a ridiculous analogy because quality of a car is a completely subjective term.

So, in other words, I'm off the hook, since you guys would spend the rest of your lives wrangling over what I meant by "perfect," right?

(That is, assuming Uncle Hermit even accepted the car - [I can't tell if he did or not].)

You guys are experts at adding to someone's analogy to the point you can claim it doesn't make sense. You must be "scientists" or something.

 

[UncleHermit]

So, in other words, I'm off the hook, since you guys would spend the rest of your lives wrangling over what I meant by "perfect," right?

No, all you have to do is tell me what you mean by "perfect car", and I would be able to answer the question. If I try to place my own definition of "perfect car" into the analogy, I can't answer it because my "perfect car" cannot be wrecked.

I was only trying to understand your question and give an answer, but if it's not a big deal to you then I guess never mind.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, all you have to do is tell me what you mean by "perfect car", and I would be able to answer the question. If I try to place my own definition of "perfect car" into the analogy, I can't answer it because my "perfect car" cannot be wrecked.

I was only trying to understand your question and give an answer, but if it's not a big deal to you then I guess never mind.

I have the feeling that if I would have said I created a "real neat" car, no one would have questioned it. I love it when I put forth a challenge, then all of a sudden, everyone who likes to talk "science" suddenly has a lack of understanding of basic terminology.

(Now watch, folks, this thread is going to light up with question marks - a "scientist's" standard icon.)

By "perfect" I mean "complete." Now can you answer the challenge?

 

[dlamberth]

You three need to take my Perfect Car Challenge.

The technology of a perfect car to me is such that it will never, ever allow the car to get into a wreck. Your car failed to live up to what it was advertised to do. As the builder, that clearly is your fault.

.